the UN is best known for peacekeeping missions........?

Question

Do these activities justify support for the UN? Would it be better if the activities of these agencies were done by private entities such as trade groups

Answer 1

The UN is our US and UK pet project (we practically own the UN), we supply the majority of operational funding in virtually ALL UN initiatives.

Inclusive to financially funding poorer countries that has social, economic, financial, and governmental stagnation. Avoiding any type of a aggressive take over of a collapsed government and/or the occupation of a foreign soil by another country.

So, in short, the UN is nothing without the US, and UK's involvement and support, to exist as as a peacekeeping alternative or room for talks. You will also hear a lot of criticism about the UN and their weaknesses and shortcomings, that has failed and continually fail to make a difference for a peaceful world.

Answer 2

Have you done research in the "peace keeping" missions;

Since 1948 there have been 53 UN peacekeeping operations, 40 of which were created by the Security Council between 1988 and 2000.

As of 15 June 2000, there were 39 completed missions, and 14 current missions. Of these 3+15 (current/completed) have been in Africa; 8 (completed) in the Americas; 3+6 in Asia, 5+ 5 in Europe, and 4+5 in the Middle East.

1,648 peacekeepers have died while serving in these missions up to 14 July 2000

In recent years, in a growing number of countries, Governments no longer seem to be capable of protecting the civilians from attacks by local warlords and militia -- leaders whose only aim is power and personal enrichment. The threat of international isolation or condemnation has little or no effect on them. In such a situation, what can the United Nations do?

There is no substitute for sufficient means, robust mandates and the willingness of those States capable of doing so to provide first-rate military and logistical support. "The best peacekeeper is a well-trained, disciplined and well-equipped soldier." -The United States-

seems to me like the UN is just another entity trying to be the big guy on the block and telling others what to think or do.

Answer 3

Private entities can always do a better job but the problem would be acceptance by the concerned parties.Missions under UNO have a code of conduct to follow and are considered neutral and it's authority is backed by member nations.It would well neigh be impossible to find private parties with such credentials.

Answer 4

The UN has been, from the very start up, very just about a finished failure as an business enterprise. As with something in politics, it is not any longer suitable and it truly is crammed with corruption and paperwork. money makes the international flow good? You advance a stable component besides the incontrovertible fact that it truly is annoying to assert if issues would actual strengthen. only ask all the countries suffering genocide for the final 20-30 years and not something is executed approximately it by using the UN (very constrained place). Thank God for alleviation and humanitarian agencies with generally volunteers who danger their lives on a daily basis to assist others.

Answer 5

............Led by the US.

Just thought I'd finish your statement for you.